Ah, okay, that is what I thought. Let me guess, Lukvance defined "God" as love without supporting evidence?

Nah; it's completely different. See, his god is not actually love, but it is like love in that they both exist. At least that's what he's saying now after I debunked his claim that his god was an emotion.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Exactly. My claim is that there does not exist a proof of the existence of Love (reason why you believe love exist) that can't be applied to God.

For example :I believe that love exist because I can see people being attracted to each other. If love did not exist there is no way they would be attracted to each other.I believe that God exist because I can see people pray God. If God did not exist there is no way they would be praying God.

One could argue that some people are crazy and pray things that do not exist. I would argue back that some people are crazy and love things that do not exist too. But you still believe that love exist don't you?

Exactly. My claim is that there does not exist a proof of the existence of Love (reason why you believe love exist) that can't be applied to God.

And this is your problem: what you say might be true but, if it is, it means that “God” is personal to each person and exists only in their mind.

It could be a linguistic problem. In English, “Love” is known as “an abstract noun”: it describes something that is intangible. In this case a feeling or an emotion.

Feelings and emotions have no real existence – they cannot be put, for example into a bottle or box.

Because abstract nouns have no real existence it is not possible to have anything other than a personal and subjective idea of their actual nature. Any attempt to describe your particular feeling of “Love” is therefore impossible, as your listener will have differing reference points[1]

If your assertion is true, then God is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary.

Congratulations Luk, you may be the first Catholic to show that God is imaginary.

If you want another example, we can use “Pain” instead of “Love” as “Pain is an abstract noun: it is not possible to experience someone else’s pain, is it? We may know that they say they are in pain, but we cannot know exactly what they are suffering nor how they are suffering. This is the nature of abstract nouns.

« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 06:40:23 AM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

^^^That makes total sense. Thinking of "god" as a abstract noun, like love or pain, where they really do only "exist" because they are produced inside people's brains. There is no evidence of love or pain free-floating around in outer space where there are no living beings. Likewise, there is no evidence of any god where there are not living beings to envision such a being.

Everyone has a different idea of what god is. What does a "greatest possible being" look like? An old but improbably muscular Euro-dude with a long white beard and a deep, echoing voice--British accent, of course. Why?[1]

If we could hook everyone in the world who believes in a god to a computer screen that drew an image based on what each person thought god was like, we would get a whole lot of different pictures.

It would vary depending on age, culture, educational background. People from an isolated tribe on a remote island who have never seen the paintings from the Sistine Chapel would not have that image in their mind. They might see god as one of their carved idols, or an animal totem, or the shaman of their tribe.

We know this is true, because of the very different religious imagery produced by different cultures. The Hindu pantheon does not look like the Aztec pantheon, and neither looks like the west African pantheon or the ancient Greek pantheon. They are all different gods!

That is not what you should get if there was really one true god, a real being, that communicated with everyone. Everyone should be imagining that one god. You would expect there to be some consistency. But there is not, other than many cultures having gods of important things: war, love, rain, death and so forth.

There are also legends and myths that seem to be universal among human cultures--stories about families and disputes and mistakes and heroes and sacrifice. That is why, when Christianity is taught to people, there is often a local god who people can associate with Jesus or Jehovah, a powerful angry or loving and long-suffering father god-- like Zeus. Or the upstart reckless hero son god--like Krishna. But even there, the gods look and behave differently from culture to culture.

Same thing with love, or pain. Different cultures have different ways of visually expressing them. Not everyone thinks of love as red hearts or a fat baby with arrows. Because love is abstract. Not so much with concrete nouns like a cupcake, the Eiffel Tower, or Ronald Reagan, or the dining room chair.

God is a cow, or a serpent-bird, or the sun, or a giant man with a beard. Love is a pregnant woman or a heart-shaped glittery stone or a pink flower or a baby with arrows. Pain is red, sharp and angry; or yellow, hot and nauseating; or white, cold and metallic.

Nobody when asked to describe a cupcake or a chair would talk about serpent-birds or cows.

Exactly. My claim is that there does not exist a proof of the existence of Love (reason why you believe love exist) that can't be applied to God.

And this is your problem: what you say might be true but, if it is, it means that “God” is personal to each person and exists only in their mind.

It could be a linguistic problem. In English, “Love” is known as “an abstract noun”: it describes something that is intangible. In this case a feeling or an emotion.

Feelings and emotions have no real existence – they cannot be put, for example into a bottle or box.

Because abstract nouns have no real existence it is not possible to have anything other than a personal and subjective idea of their actual nature. Any attempt to describe your particular feeling of “Love” is therefore impossible, as your listener will have differing reference points[1]

If your assertion is true, then God is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary.

Congratulations Luk, you may be the first Catholic to show that God is imaginary.

If you want another example, we can use “Pain” instead of “Love” as “Pain is an abstract noun: it is not possible to experience someone else’s pain, is it? We may know that they say they are in pain, but we cannot know exactly what they are suffering nor how they are suffering. This is the nature of abstract nouns.

We agree Graybeard.If Love is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary. ThenGod is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary. Will you now stop saying that you love your closest (children/wife/girlfriend/whoever you love) as it is a lie because love is only in your imagination? Will you?

Fear, love, anger, pain, etc are reactions produced by chemicals in the brain in response to some emotional or physical stimulus. We know what parts of the brain and what chemicals produce these feelings. For example, there are chemicals that women's brains produce after they give birth and when nursing that help them feel love for their babies.

The feelings are also abstract, not concrete, meaning everyone's brain produces a reaction to the same stimulus that can differ, depending on culture, etc. Saying something is abstract does not mean the chemical reaction is not real. What it means is that the reaction happens only in the brain, not externally. Without a brain, there can be no reaction.

There is no free floating love, fear, anger or pain out somewhere in the universe where there is no life. These are concepts that human beings have come up with to describe what happens in our brains when we get scared, get hurt, get angry or feel love for someone.

Why do you think that, if a reaction happens in your brain, you therefore cannot say that you love someone? Of course you feel love for other people. But you feel love because of how the brain works. How else would you love people if not for the reactions in your brain in response to seeing or talking to them? Only living things with brains can feel love, fear, anger or pain. Dead people and people who do not exist have a really hard time loving anyone.

If scientists can stimulate a part of someone's brain to make them feel angry, scared, sad or loving, they are still having the feeling, even if the reaction is coming from an artificial source. By the same token, watching a scary movie or seeing what you think is a ghost (but is really a curtain blowing in a dark window) will make the brain produce scary feelings, even though there is nothing real to be afraid of. Point being, there has to be some stimulus, and a brain to react to the stimulus. The feelings will be real no matter what produces the reaction.

So, what was your point again about why we cannot say we love anyone?

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

If Love is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary. ThenGod is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary.

Where do you see that You cannot say that you love someone?I might have said that IF and only IF love does not exist THEN you shouldn't say you love someone.

You keep attempting to compare your word "God" (which you have not coherently defined) with the word "love" which does in fact have a coherent definition; referring to physical interactions in the brain and body. Until you actually produce a coherent definition of what "God" is (what "IT" is that you are referring to, in positive terms) you cannot compare the two, as your attempt will be continually rejected b/c it is a false comparison.

Lukvance, did you even read nogodsforme's reply? It looks like you just skimmed the whole post, read the last sentence, then quoted yourself.

Yes.How is it that quoting myself does not answer her questions? What is not clear about what I am saying.What is so vague that you have to explain how love works in this society?It always comes back to that simple question. The answer is YES or NO.Do you think that love exist?YES? Then God Exist too.NO? Then God doesn't exist and each time you use love you use something that does not exist i/e lie when you say I love you.

If Love is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary. ThenGod is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary.

Where do you see that You cannot say that you love someone?I might have said that IF and only IF love does not exist THEN you shouldn't say you love someone.

You keep attempting to compare your word "God" (which you have not coherently defined) with the word "love" which does in fact have a coherent definition; referring to physical interactions in the brain and body. Until you actually produce a coherent definition of what "God" is (what "IT" is that you are referring to, in positive terms) you cannot compare the two, as your attempt will be continually rejected b/c it is a false comparison.

Lukvance, did you even read nogodsforme's reply? It looks like you just skimmed the whole post, read the last sentence, then quoted yourself.

Yes.How is it that quoting myself does not answer her questions? What is not clear about what I am saying.What is so vague that you have to explain how love works in this society?It always comes back to that simple question. The answer is YES or NO.Do you think that love exist?YES? Then God Exist too.NO? Then God doesn't exist and each time you use love you use something that does not exist i/e lie when you say I love you.

Love does exist. In your brain. It is real. In your brain. You love other people. With your brain.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

If Love is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary. ThenGod is not real but is only in your imagination, or, as we say in English, imaginary.

Where do you see that You cannot say that you love someone?I might have said that IF and only IF love does not exist THEN you shouldn't say you love someone.

You keep attempting to compare your word "God" (which you have not coherently defined) with the word "love" which does in fact have a coherent definition; referring to physical interactions in the brain and body. Until you actually produce a coherent definition of what "God" is (what "IT" is that you are referring to, in positive terms) you cannot compare the two, as your attempt will be continually rejected b/c it is a false comparison.

I use the definition that you can find in the dictionary. How about you share your definition of love? and God?

NOPE. You aren't going to turn the tables on me Luk b/c that is your attempt to shift the burden of proof (which is yet another logical fallacy). YOU are the one who is claiming that some thing called "God" exists and I have asked you for a coherent definition of what that "thing" is (i.e. - what it is made up of). Your dictionary posts are insufficient (as I have already noted and you have failed to address my rebuttals). Again, the dictionary reports the multiple uses and etymology of terms (i.e. - the history of how) by people. It does not require that those uses are rational. And you provided multiple entries; not just one that you were trying to argue was both the necessary and sufficient conditions to be "God". In fact you keep switching your definitions, changing scope, and jumping around - trying to talk about a "thing" that has "no form and no composition" which is incoherent! It is immensely clear from your extreme dodging that you simply cannot meet the challenge (which has been precisely my point). You are attempting to use a word for which you have no referent (i.e. - no "thing" to refer to b/c, according to your own words, this "it" has no form and no composition). And that means that when you use that word you literally are not referring to anything. So unless you can actually tell us what this alleged "thing" is that you are trying to refer to (by positive essential characteristics, in positive terms), then you are simply talking non-sense.

Love does exist. In your brain. It is real. In your brain. You love other people. With your brain.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

What makes you think that I don't grasp that? I totally agree with you. Love does exist. In your brain. It is real. In your brain. You love other people. With your brain.So does God.That was the conclusion of reply #823. Which should have closed the thread.

Exactly. My claim is that there does not exist a proof of the existence of Love (reason why you believe love exist) that can't be applied to God.For example :I believe that love exist because I can see people being attracted to each other. If love did not exist there is no way they would be attracted to each other.

I believe that God exist because I can see people pray God. If God did not exist there is no way they would be praying God.

So when you visit a Mormon temple the Mormon god must exist?When you see Hindus praying to their elephant statues the Hindu elephant god exists?When you see the Muslems praying that means you believe their god literally exists?

I think that you are having trouble understanding the purpose of examples.They are here as a representative. They are not exhaustive as you seem to imply.Anyway, we were not here to discuss which God is the right one. We were here to discuss the probability of God's existence.This probability has been demonstrated to be as high as the probability of Love's existence.If you want to talk about which god is the correct one, wouldn't you first need to accept the existence of "a" god?

But it is very important if there are many gods, or just one, or what? If, as you say, the evidence for a god (any god) being real is that people worship it, it seems that you are arguing for polytheism.

Anything people worship as a god is a real god, with all the powers that the people think it has. It does not matter what god you believe in. Every religion is equally true.

Of course, I think that last sentence is factually correct.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

But it is very important if there are many gods, or just one, or what? If, as you say, the evidence for a god (any god) being real is that people worship it, it seems that you are arguing for polytheism.

Anything people worship as a god is a real god, with all the powers that the people think it has. It does not matter what god you believe in. Every religion is equally true.

Of course, I think that last sentence is factually correct.

You understand that before tackling those question You must admit that there is a god (at least one) that exist?

You understand that before tackling those question You must admit that there is a god (at least one) that exist?

That's absolutely untrue. If I don't believe that Santa Clause or Bigfoot exists that doesn't deny me the right to discuss their nonexistence. Do you understand what a hypothetical is? We can discuss God as existing as an idea.